John,
On 2/25/2021 9:30 PM, John C Klensin
wrote:
This is not like the use of non-ASCII characters in domain names, because reactions are not used as resource locators. If a visually confusable emoji is used to replace another, the reader is not misled into arriving at the wrong resource.No, but the user may be misled.
And they may not.
Since you mention a dragon below, consider how would you respond to receiving a single dragon emoji response and what would assume the sender was trying to convey? I can sort of guess given your comment about teeth, but, if you sent the same symbol/ code point to a Chinese colleague, I'd hope you would expect a rather different interpretation.
The specter you raise is that an author might make a choice that will be misunderstood by a recipient.
Since that problem is not going to be solved in its general form,
what makes it reasonable to impose it here?
What makes this small mechanism worthy of such a great fear? And especially what makes it greater than for the rest of an author's message?
This is a mechanism that provides a very simple context, for
conveying a very rich array of symbols. It lets author and MUA
developer decide what symbols to use.
d/
-- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
